Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Custis, 96-6978 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6978 Visitors: 30
Filed: Jan. 09, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6978 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARREN J. CUSTIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 91-334-S, CA-96-1352-S) Submitted: November 12, 1996 Decided: January 9, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darren J. Custis,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6978 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARREN J. CUSTIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 91-334-S, CA-96-1352-S) Submitted: November 12, 1996 Decided: January 9, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darren J. Custis, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Darren J. Custis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Custis, Nos. CR-91-334-S; CA-96-1352-S (D. Md. May 30, 1996). We deny Custis' motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci- sional process. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer